[REQ] "missing" Ships

AntEater · 03-29-07, 09:23 AM

I am not sure how easy it is to make new ships compared to Sh3, but let's make a list of desirable additions:
I can think of the following:

Matsu class destroyer escort
Mass produced "cheap" destroyer of 1944/45, was surely often encountered by US subs. Most numerous large IJN vessel of 1945

T1 class fast transport
Variant of the above as fast transport with a stern ramp to roll off landing craft/midget subs or other cargo

Ukuru/Etoforu class escort.
Most numerous IJN escort. Larger than the in game Kaibokan Subchaser, but smaller than a destroyer. The first were build before WW2 and mass production continued until 1945. One survived until 1997 as the last existing IJN WW2 vessel.

Unryu class carrier:
Minor modification of the Hiryu class for wartime mass production.

"real" Mogami class cruiser
Modify the existing Mogami into how she looked before Midway and how Suzuya and Kumano looked until their sinkings 1944. No plane deck and 2 turrets aft.

"numbered" Patrol boat destroyer
1920s (Minekaze and earlier) destroyer with reduced armament and increased ASW equipment.

Nagato Class Battleship (why is this one the only IJN BB missing?)

tater · 03-29-07, 09:34 AM

Yeah, the Ukuru, Type D, etc would be a welcome addition.

Another thing would be far more SMALL merchantmen. Fox Tares of under 1000 tons, and Sugar types (steel sea trucks) of similar size.

03-29-07, 09:45 AM

Modeling shouldn't be any harder.
You get more polys to work with for one thing.
But you'll need to model 2 more objects for damage.
Those look like wicked work to do right.

nimitstexan · 03-29-07, 12:30 PM

I Tone/Chikuma Class would be nice.

As would an Essex or Yorktown class carrier for the US

AntEater · 03-30-07, 04:10 PM

*bump*
How about making this one a sticky?
As mentioned above, there is great variation potential in the 1920s/WW1 IJN destroyers, as all of them basically had the same hull shape, and there were tons of modifications of the basic Minekaze type alone, most of them for ASW. By removing a gun mount here and adding more DCs there and fiddling with the parameters, easily 3-4 additional classes could be created.
Also, there are these "second rate" destroyers which are basically looking the same, only smaller.
Also, I am strongly in favor of totally removing those river gunboats
Running into a piece of decoration from "the sand pebbles" in the middle of the pacific ocean certainly feels strange.

tater · 03-30-07, 06:01 PM

^^^ same goes for the "Clemson" Class (the USN didn't recognize such a class in 1943, they called them the "No. 186 to 347 Class"). That's because they are actually Wilkes Class, right? Wilkes was given tot he RN along with 79 more 4 stackers. Anyway, they were converted to the "flush deckers" as well as APDs, DMs, DMS, and AVDs. Quite a bit to do with the 4-stacker DDs!

tater

bigboywooly · 03-30-07, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

^^^ same goes for the "Clemson" Class (the USN didn't recognize such a class in 1943, they called them the "No. 186 to 347 Class"). That's because they are actually Wilkes Class, right? Wilkes was given tot he RN along with 79 more 4 stackers. Anyway, they were converted to the "flush deckers" as well as APDs, DMs, DMS, and AVDs. Quite a bit to do with the 4-stacker DDs!

tater

Wickes class ran from DD0075 to DD0185

The Wickes and Clemson classes were different

Wickes http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/wickes_class.htm
http://uboat.net/allies/warships/class.html?ID=95

Clemson http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/clemson_class.htm
http://uboat.net/allies/warships/class.html?ID=96

Britain received 26 Wickes and 20 Clemson
Along with 3 Caldwell class flush deckers

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/ships-dd.html
http://www.ww2pacific.com/llnames.html

There is an APD around somewhere for SH3 which can be converted if no one builds a new one

tater · 03-30-07, 07:00 PM

Yeah, but Clemson, et al were basically Wickes class ships with minor modifications (and more fuel). They're different in length by 0.5 inches, lol. They are different, though, you are right.

OTOH, my ONI manual doesn't give them a class name, so the period USN didn't call the "Clemson Class" even if we do now.

tater

AntEater · 03-30-07, 07:08 PM

Problem is, all those clemson variations are not really what we need.
We need more japanese ships.

bigboywooly · 03-30-07, 07:10 PM

Most ships were a variation of another

The US Tacoma frigate was an updated British River class Frigate

Is the Tacoma in SH4 ?

cdrsubron7 · 03-30-07, 09:09 PM

Sofar I haven't seen anybody mention the Akagi or the Kaga. Not to mention the Soryu. All very important CVs in the Japanese Navy in the early months of WW II.

cdrsubron7

tater · 03-30-07, 10:49 PM

Heheh, true, need targets

Mush Martin · 03-31-07, 04:04 AM

I think the Seaplane carriers and a few sub tenders with static IJN subs
as part of a harbor set up.

also if we are making a wish list how about a KD6 sub fastest sub on the
surface going into the war.

LukeFF · 04-01-07, 10:41 PM

If people want, they can add the Tribal Class DD to the Australian roster. Just copy and paste the DDTribal file from /Roster/British/Sea to /Roster/Australian/Sea and overwrite the [Unit] text with the following:

[Unit 1]
Name=HMAS Arunta
DOC=19420330
DOD=19690213

[Unit 2]
Name=HMAS Bataan
DOC=19450525
DOD=19541018

[Unit 3]
Name=HMAS Warramunga
DOC=19421023
DOD=19591207

03-29-07, 09:23 AM	#1
AntEater Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 936 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	[REQ] "missing" Ships I am not sure how easy it is to make new ships compared to Sh3, but let's make a list of desirable additions: I can think of the following: Matsu class destroyer escort Mass produced "cheap" destroyer of 1944/45, was surely often encountered by US subs. Most numerous large IJN vessel of 1945 T1 class fast transport Variant of the above as fast transport with a stern ramp to roll off landing craft/midget subs or other cargo Ukuru/Etoforu class escort. Most numerous IJN escort. Larger than the in game Kaibokan Subchaser, but smaller than a destroyer. The first were build before WW2 and mass production continued until 1945. One survived until 1997 as the last existing IJN WW2 vessel. Unryu class carrier: Minor modification of the Hiryu class for wartime mass production. "real" Mogami class cruiser Modify the existing Mogami into how she looked before Midway and how Suzuya and Kumano looked until their sinkings 1944. No plane deck and 2 turrets aft. "numbered" Patrol boat destroyer 1920s (Minekaze and earlier) destroyer with reduced armament and increased ASW equipment. Nagato Class Battleship (why is this one the only IJN BB missing?) __________________

03-30-07, 04:10 PM	#5
AntEater Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 936 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	bump How about making this one a sticky? As mentioned above, there is great variation potential in the 1920s/WW1 IJN destroyers, as all of them basically had the same hull shape, and there were tons of modifications of the basic Minekaze type alone, most of them for ASW. By removing a gun mount here and adding more DCs there and fiddling with the parameters, easily 3-4 additional classes could be created. Also, there are these "second rate" destroyers which are basically looking the same, only smaller. Also, I am strongly in favor of totally removing those river gunboats Running into a piece of decoration from "the sand pebbles" in the middle of the pacific ocean certainly feels strange. __________________

03-30-07, 07:08 PM	#9
AntEater Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 936 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Problem is, all those clemson variations are not really what we need. We need more japanese ships. __________________

03-30-07, 07:10 PM	#10
bigboywooly Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Swindon, England Posts: 10,151 Downloads: 35 Uploads: 0	Most ships were a variation of another The US Tacoma frigate was an updated British River class Frigate Is the Tacoma in SH4 ? __________________ My mediafire page http://www.mediafire.com/?11eoq19bq9r41

03-30-07, 09:09 PM	#11
cdrsubron7 Sink'em All Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Naperville, IL Posts: 2,150 Downloads: 305 Uploads: 1	Sofar I haven't seen anybody mention the Akagi or the Kaga. Not to mention the Soryu. All very important CVs in the Japanese Navy in the early months of WW II. cdrsubron7 __________________ Head Deep and Keep'em Astern" - LtCDR Samuel D Dealy SHIV Guide \| Imperial Japanese Navy \| US Submarines

03-29-07, 09:34 AM	#2
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Yeah, the Ukuru, Type D, etc would be a welcome addition. Another thing would be far more SMALL merchantmen. Fox Tares of under 1000 tons, and Sugar types (steel sea trucks) of similar size.

03-29-07, 09:45 AM	#3
Madox58 Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Modeling shouldn't be any harder. You get more polys to work with for one thing. But you'll need to model 2 more objects for damage. Those look like wicked work to do right.

03-29-07, 12:30 PM	#4
nimitstexan Loader Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 87 Downloads: 14 Uploads: 0	I Tone/Chikuma Class would be nice. As would an Essex or Yorktown class carrier for the US

03-30-07, 06:01 PM	#6
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	^^^ same goes for the "Clemson" Class (the USN didn't recognize such a class in 1943, they called them the "No. 186 to 347 Class"). That's because they are actually Wilkes Class, right? Wilkes was given tot he RN along with 79 more 4 stackers. Anyway, they were converted to the "flush deckers" as well as APDs, DMs, DMS, and AVDs. Quite a bit to do with the 4-stacker DDs! tater

03-30-07, 07:00 PM	#8
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Yeah, but Clemson, et al were basically Wickes class ships with minor modifications (and more fuel). They're different in length by 0.5 inches, lol. They are different, though, you are right. OTOH, my ONI manual doesn't give them a class name, so the period USN didn't call the "Clemson Class" even if we do now. tater

03-30-07, 10:49 PM	#12
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Heheh, true, need targets

03-31-07, 04:04 AM	#13
Mush Martin Eternal Patrol Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,398 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	I think the Seaplane carriers and a few sub tenders with static IJN subs as part of a harbor set up. also if we are making a wish list how about a KD6 sub fastest sub on the surface going into the war. __________________ RIP Mush Tutorial

04-01-07, 10:41 PM	#14
LukeFF Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Riverside, California Posts: 3,610 Downloads: 41 Uploads: 5	If people want, they can add the Tribal Class DD to the Australian roster. Just copy and paste the DDTribal file from /Roster/British/Sea to /Roster/Australian/Sea and overwrite the [Unit] text with the following: [Unit 1] Name=HMAS Arunta DOC=19420330 DOD=19690213 [Unit 2] Name=HMAS Bataan DOC=19450525 DOD=19541018 [Unit 3] Name=HMAS Warramunga DOC=19421023 DOD=19591207